Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. W. Hancock


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Stonkaments (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert E. W. Hancock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is not notable—the article only cites Hancock's own papers for what he's most known for. The article is also extremely promotional ("considered a world leader in his field"), poorly sourced, poorly written, and was flagged for an apparent conflict of interest in 2018 that hasn't been meaningfully addressed. Stonkaments (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Obvious pass of WP:PROF (14 publications with over 1000 citations each; over 100 would already be good enough), multiple pass of #C2 (OBC, Prix Galien, Michael Smith Prize, and McLaughlin Medal among others), multiple pass of #C3 (FRSC, Fellow IDSA, Fellow AAM, Fellow CAHS), likely multiple pass of #C5 (Canada Research Chair and Killam Professorship). Any one of these by itself would be good enough. Speedy because the nominator doesn't appear to have even attempted to consider our academic notability guidelines, instead basing the nomination on sourcing (GNG, the wrong notability criterion for academics) and doing even that part wrong (WP:BEFORE requires searching for outside sources, not merely evaluating the sources present in the article, and many of the sources already present in the article are independent of the subject and his employer). There is some promotional language in the article but not so much as to make it worthy of deletion; WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep absolutely no question. How on earth did he even get nominated? A named chair and the Order of British Columbia are probably quite sufficient on their own. Yup, the article has some promotional language in it, but it's hard not to look flashy when you've got a track record like his. Elemimele (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Obvious pass of multiple WP:PROF criteria, as argued above. And after even a quick editing pass, the tone is less glurgy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notability is established in the very first sentence, at "Killam Professor". JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes NPROF, e.g. on NPROF-1 we have an h-index of 169 and nearly 115,000 citations. Fourteen separate works of his surpassed 1,000 citations.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, clearly a failure of WP:BEFORE. --hroest 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes general notability guidelines. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 17:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes general notability guidelines. There are lots of refs present to support notability. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per above, passes notability and WP:NPROF. Alex-h (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Given it's WP:SNOWing, perhaps User:Stonkaments can retract the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.